Credit bidding is the process whereby a lender, with a secured charge over a borrower’s asset, bids on that asset using the very debt that is owed by the borrower to the lender. The circumstances are usually foreclosure of a lending position against a borrower.
In the maritime sector, this process often takes place in the context of forced judicial sales of vessels pendente lite (i.e., during the course of litigation) and frequently before judgment is obtained against the borrower shipowner.
As discussed in previousposts, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (the “Act”) was signed into law on December 27, 2020, largely to address the harsh economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Part 2: Amendments Affecting Mortgage Lenders and Landlords
As discussed in a previous post, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (the “Act”), which was enacted on December 27, 2020 in response to the economic distress caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, amended numerous provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. This post discusses amendments specifically affecting landlords.
On December 27, 2020, in response to the economic distress caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and to supplement the CARES Act enacted in March 2020, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (the “Act”) was enacted. In addition to providing $900 billion in pandemic relief, the Act benefits both debtors and creditors by temporarily modifying the following sections of the Bankruptcy Code, which may be of particular interest to creditors:
If a creditor is holding property of a party that files bankruptcy, is it “exercising control over” such property (and violating the automatic stay) by refusing the debtor’s turnover demands? According to the Supreme Court, the answer is no – instead, the stay under Section 362(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code only applies to affirmative acts that disturb the status quo as of the filing date. In other words, the mere retention of property of a debtor after the filing of a bankruptcy case does not violate the automatic stay.
Hot on the heels of the landmark changes to the insolvency landscape brought by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA) (see our previous article on CIGA), the Government recently announced reforms relating to pre-packaged administration sales to connected parties.
We recently reported on Delaware Judge Christopher Sontchi’s decision in the Extraction bankruptcy to permit the rejection of midstream gathering agreements.1 Fellow Delaware Judge Karen Owens followed Extraction in the Southland Royalty decision issued November 13, 2020.2 Judge Owens determined that Southland Royalty Company, LLC (“Southland”), an E&P operator with assets primarily in Wyoming, could reject the gas gathering agreement and sell its assets free and clear of the agreement.
Summary of decisions In re Body Transit, Inc., No. BR 2010014 ELF, 2020 WL 1486784 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Mar. 24, 2020).
Straffi v Aeris Bank (In re Hillesland), No. 1925278( CMG), 2020 Bankr. LEXIS 2235 (Bankr. D.N.J. Aug. 17, 2020).
Case Snapshot The Bankruptcy Court held that a chapter 7 trustee could avoid judgment creditor’s lien pursuant to his “strongarm” powers under section 544(a) of the bankruptcy code because the judgment creditor did not make a good faith effort to locate debtor’s personal property before it levied against real property, as required under applicable New Jersey law.
In re Tribune Company, et al. No. 182909 (3d Cir. filed Aug. 26, 2020).
Case Snapshot